Carson-Grayson v. Grayson

• Decision Date: 25 May 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 5D17–2381
• Citation: 247 So.3d 675
• Parties: Lolita B. CARSON–GRAYSON, Appellant, v. Alan GRAYSON, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

247 So.3d 675

Lolita B. CARSON–GRAYSON, Appellant,
v.
Alan GRAYSON, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17–2381

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 25, 2018

Lisa J. Ramsey, of Ramsey Law, PLLC, Oviedo, for Appellant.

Kenneth D. Morse, of Kenneth D. Morse, P.A., Heathrow, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, J.

Lolita B. Carson–Grayson appeals a non-final order conveying her interest in certain property to Alan Grayson. She argues that she was denied due process when the trial court ruled on motions at a hearing that had been noticed only as a scheduling conference. We agree and reverse.¹

This litigation began when Ms. Carson–Grayson filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Mr. Grayson filed a counterclaim

247 So.3d 676

seeking annulment, a determination of paternity, and asserting various claims relating to the parties' jointly held property. Following a judgment of annulment of the parties' marriage, Mr. Grayson filed two motions, seeking the transfer of Ms. Carson–Grayson's interest in property to him. He noticed both motions for a full hearing on July 7. Soon thereafter, he filed a second notice setting a short hearing for June 22 for the purpose of "asking for set hearing time for" the motions.

Ms. Carson–Grayson, who was pro se at the time, did not attend the June 22 hearing. Despite being noticed only as a scheduling conference, the court considered and granted both of Mr. Grayson's motions and subsequently entered the order on appeal. The order stated that it was made "on the basis of the evidence and legal argument therein, and considering any opposition filed thereto."² Nonetheless, the court kept the July 7 hearing on the docket, which Mr. Grayson then re-noticed for a different matter. Ms. Carson–Grayson appeared at the July 7 hearing, but the court refused to address the property distribution motions because they had already been resolved.

"Due process requires that a party ‘be given ... a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.’ " VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase...